2 176 MCrae and Jhn ing systems f Guilfrd, Cattell, and H. J. Eysenk. S when Tupes and Christal (1961; reprinted in this issue) fund five reurrent fatrs in analyses f persnality ratings in eight different samples, they were understandably surprised: In many ways it seems remarkable that suh stability shuld be fund in an area whih t date has granted anything but nsistent results. Undubtedly the nsisteny has always been there, but it has been hidden by innsisteny f fatrial tehniques and philsphies, the lak f repliatin using idential variables, and disagreement amng analysts as t fatr titles, (p. 12) Despite their wrk and the mre widely read repliatin f Nrman (1963) the imprtane f these five fatrs remained hidden frm mst persnality psyhlgists thrughut the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s, hwever, researhers frm many different traditins were led t nlude that these fatrs were fundamental dimensins f persnality, fund in self-reprts and ratings, in natural languages and theretially based questinnaires, in hildren, llege students, and lder adults, in men and wmen, and in English, Duth, German, and Japanese samples (Jhn, 1990a). All five fatrs were shwn t have nvergent and disriminant validity arss instruments and bservers, and t endure arss deades in adults (MCrae & Csta, 1990). As a brief intrdutin t their nature. Table 1 lists definers f the psitive ple f eah f these fatrs. This new nsensus has grwn rapidly. Tw r three years ag, a speial issue n the tpi wuld dubtless have been filled with artiles ffering evidene fr r against the mdel itself (e.g., Brkenau & Ostendrf, 1989; Nller, Law, & Cmrey, 1987; Waller & Ben-Prath, 1987; Zukerman, Kuhlman, & Cama, 1988). We will review sme f that evidene here; it is als treated elsewhere (Digman, 1990; Gldberg, 1990; Jhn, 1990a; Wiggins & Trapnell, in press). Tday we believe it is mre fruitful t adpt the wrking hypthesis that the five-fatr mdel (FFM) f persnality is essentially rret in its representatin f the struture f traits' and t preed t its impliatins fr persnality thery and its appliatins thrughut psyhlgy. This has been ur guiding priniple behind this speial issue. 1. In this artile we use phrases like "struture f traits'" and "dimensins f persnality" t refer t the patterns f variatin f traits arss individuals, nt t the rganizatin f attributes within the individual (f. Jhn. 1990a. p. 96).

3 Intrdutin 177 If this hypthesis is rret if we have truly disvered the basi dimensins f persnality it marks a turning pint fr persnality psyhlgy. Instead fthe interminable disputes amng mpeting systems that s lng paralyzed the field, we uld see perative researh and umulative findings. Instead f the redundany that results frm measuring the same nstrut under a dzen different names, we uld see an effiient integratin f the literature arss many instruments. And instead fthe lst insights that a haphazard seletin f persnality variables is likely t prdue, we uld see a mplete and systemati pursuit f persnality rrelates. The FFM uld prvide a mmn language fr psyhlgists frm different traditins, a basi phenmenn fr persnality therists t explain, a natural framewrk fr rganizing researh, and a guide t the mprehensive assessment f individuals that shuld be f value t eduatinal, industrial/rganizatinal, and linial psyhlgists. Even its mst ardent defenders d nt laim that the FFM is the last wrd in the desriptin f persnality. There are disputes amng fivefatrists abut the best interpretatin f the fatrs; there are ertainly imprtant distintins t be made at the level f the mre mleular traits that define the fatrs; and it is pssible that there are ther basi dimensins f persnality. But sme versin f these five dimensins is at least neessary fr an adequate desriptin f individual differenes, and if all persnality researhers mpare their preferred system t this framewrk, it shuld sn beme lear whether and in what ways the mdel is defiient. Naming and Identifying the Fatrs The nsensus that five-fatrists see amng themselves may be puzzling t utsiders beause the "disagreement amng analysts as t fatr titles" that Tupes and Christal nted still plagues the field (Jhn, 1990b). Fatr names reflet histrial aidents, neptual psitins, and the entrenhment that mes frm a published bdy f literature and frm published instruments. There are tw prminent systems fr naming the fatrs, ne derived frm the lexial traditin and ne frm the questinnaire traditin. Many writers take Nrman's (1963) annuniatin f an "adequate taxnmy f persnality attributes" derived frm Cattell's redutin f natural language trait terms as the frmal beginning f the FFM, and the fatr numbers and names Nrman hse I: Extraversin r Sur-

10 184 MCrae and Jhn Odbert (1936) abstrated terms frm a ditinary; Cattell (1946) frmed them int synnym lusters and then reated rating sales ntrasting grups f adjetives; Tupes and Christal (1961) btained bserver ratings n these 35 sales and fatred them. (Fiske, 1949, had als used a versin f Cattell's rating sales in the earliest revery f the five fatrs.) Nrman used the best 20 rating sales frm the Tupes and Christal study in his repliatins, and that set was subsequently used in many later studies. Any emerging nsensus n the five fatrs in the 1960s was quikly derailed by the ntrversy ver impliit persnality thery (reviewed by Brkenau in this issue); that ntrversy ntributed t the demralizatin f persnality psyhlgy in the 1970s, and the FFM went int exile: The mst imprtant new studies were the rss-ultural repliatins by Bnd (1979; Bnd, Nakazat, & Shiraishi, 1975). Reanalyses f earlier data sets by Digman and Takemt-Chk (1981) and the metiulus analyses f Gldberg (1981, 1982) revived interest in the lexial apprah and reintrdued the FFM t the mainstream f persnality psyhlgy. There are several gd reasns fr beginning the searh fr persnality dimensins in the natural language. Fr the laypersn, persnality is defined by suh terms as friendly, high-strung, and puntual. These terms are the basi ways in whih individuals understand themselves and thers, akin t the flk nepts f Gugh (1987). A mplete thery f persnality must ultimately explain the phenmena t whih these terms refer and the ways in whih they are used in everyday life. And beause psyhlgists must ften rely n self-reprts and peer ratings t gather their data, they must speak the language f their infrmants. But there is ne mre mpelling reasn fr studying trait language. AUprt and Odbert nted sme 4,500 trait terms in English; surely suh a wealth f vabulary testifies t the sial imprtane f persnality traits. Cnversely, if traits are s imprtant, it seems likely that they will all be represented in the language. The lexial hypthesis hlds that all imprtant individual differenes will have been nted by speakers f a natural language at sme pint in the evlutin f the language and ended in trait terms; by deding these terms, we an disver the basi dimensins f persnality. T the extent that the lexial hypthesis is rret, analyses f language will prvide a mprehensive taxnmy f persnality traits. If we assume that persnality struture is universal, we shuld be able

12 186 MCrae and Jhn But it als beame lear that these tw dimensins did nt exhaust the full range f persnality harateristis. In 1974, Tellegen and Atkinsn prpsed that there was a third brad dmain f traits, all related t eah ther and all independent f N and E; they alled this "Openness t Absrbing and Self-Altering Experiene," r Absrptin. Independently, Csta and MCrae (1976) prpsed a similar dimensin f Openness t Experiene. Bth sets f researhers admired H. J. Eysenk's strategy f lking fr brad themes by whih t rganize grups f traits, and sught t extend it t new dimensins. By explaining as muh as pssible in terms f established fatrs, and then lking fr mmnalities in what remained unexplained, researhers uld preed t a systemati mapping f persnality traits. It was at this pint that the lexial and questinnaire traditins merged, leading t the ntemprary FFM (Digman, 1979; Hgan, 1983; MCrae & Csta, 1985). Wuld the mdel have been disvered eventually withut the guidane f the lexial traditin? Perhaps. As early as 1980, Csta and MCrae suggested that a dimensin f selfntrl might be needed, and Tellegen (1982) prpsed a similar dimensin f nstraint. These are nw regnizable as frms f Cnsientiusness. The remaining fatr Agreeableness might have been disvered in analyses fthe Interpersnal Cirumplex (Leary, 1957), whih mbines the dimensins f E and A, r f the Myers-Briggs Type Indiatr (MBTI; Myers & MCauUey, 1985), whih measures E, A, C, and O (see Table 2). In retrspet, at least, it is easy t imagine alternate lines f researh that wuld have led t the FFM. But until reently, nly a small minrity f questinnaire researhers were nerned with the issue f nsensus mst preferred t generate new sales rather than rganize thse already available. One reasn fr this may have been the theretial differenes that divided persnality researhers; anther may have been the apparent hpelessness f any empirial attempt t identify basi dimensins. There were, after all, hundreds f persnality inventries and sales, all requiring nsiderable time t mplete. A grand fatr analysis f all these wuld require thusands f subjets willing t dnate days f their time, and even then there was n mpelling reasn t believe that the results wuld tell us any mre than what kinds f traits trait psyhlgists were mst interested in measuring. By ntrast, lexial researhers uld identify a few hundred adjetives with sme nfidene that they represented the full range f trait terms needed in rdinary sial interatin, and subjets uld rate themselves r thers n these adjetives in a

14 188 MCrae and Jhn demnstrate that the rrespndenes between similarly named fatrs in the tw traditins are empirially justified. Muh subsequent researh has relied primarily n questinnaire measures f the five fatrs (see Briggs, this issue, fr a disussin f assessment issues). The Hgan Persnality Inventry (HPI; Hgan, 1986) is based in part n the FFM, and the NEO Persnality Inventry (NEO- PI; Csta & MCrae, 1985, 1989; Csta, MCrae, & Dye, 1991) expliitly attempts t measure all five fatrs, as well as sme f the speifi traits that define the fatrs (see Table 1). A series f studies using the NEO-PI (Csta & MCrae, 1988; MCrae, 1989; MCrae & Csta, 1985a, 1989a, 1989) examined the mprehensiveness fthe mdel by jint analyses with alternative persnality systems, inluding the H. J. Eysenk and S. B. G. Eysenk (1975) sales, the Guilfrd-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (J. S. Guilfrd, Zimmerman, & J. P. Guilfrd, 1976), the MBTI, Gugh's (1987) revised CPI, Jaksn's (1984) Persnality Researh Frm (PRF), and Wiggins's (1979) measure f the Interpersnal Cirumplex. Wiggins and Pinus (1989) explained persnality disrder sales in terms f the five fatrs, and Nller et al. (1987; see als Byle, 1989) fund similar fatrs in a jint analysis f instruments develped by Eysenk, Cattell, and Cmrey. Mst f the sales in these instruments appeared t refiet ne r mre f the five fatrs. Of partiular interest was a study f the Califrnia Q-Set (CQS; J. Blk, 1961). The CQS nsists f 100 statements develped by J. Blk and refined ver a perid f years by a large panel f dynamially riented psyhlgists and psyhiatrists t prvide a fully mprehensive desriptin f persnality. In a sense, it may be seen as a deliberate and sientifially guided alternative t the atalg f traits spntaneusly evlved in natural language. When five fatrs were extrated frm 403 self Q-srts, they shwed a striking resemblane t the lexial fatrs (MCrae, Csta, & Bush, 1986; see Table 1), and nvergent rrelatins between these fatrs and NEO-PI fatrs ranged frm.46 t.71 (MCrae & Csta, 1989b). Jhn (1989a) has reprted similar findings using Q-srts aggregated arss five expert bservers. In additin t the empirial evidene fr the mdel, there is smething intuitively appealing abut the fatrs: They make a great deal f sense. In part, this may be beause they make expliit the impliit persnality thery that is ended in the persnality language we all use; in part, the mdel prbably squares well with ur experiene f self and thers. In any ase, it raises the questin f why it tk persnality

15 Intrdutin 189 psyhlgists s lng t regnize what in retrspet seems s bvius. There are prbably a large number f reasns: an veremphasis n linial phenmena, with exessive attentin t distintins within the dmain f N and relative inattentin t ther dmains; the tehnial diffiulties f fatr analysis in the early days f mputers; an unprdutive preupatin with respnse sets; a disipline that enuraged innvatin and the prliferatin f sales ver repliatin and the nslidatin f findings; inrret assumptins abut measurement (e.g., assuming that ratings f intelligene were equivalent t intelligene tests); the frequently pr quality f researh what J. Blk (1977) alled the persnality "litter-ature." But part f the prblem lies in the nature f persnality struture itself. Fatr analysis seeks simple struture disrete lusters f variables that define a dimensin. We nw knw that many f the traits f entral imprtane t persnality thery are blends f tw r mre f the five dimensins (Gldberg, 1989; Jhn, 1989b). Measures f shyness, fr example, typially mbine elements f N and lw E (Briggs, 1988). Adjetives suh as hstile and temperamental may refer t attributes f high N r lw A. Even when all five dimensins are represented in a fatr analysis, a different seletin f variables an lead t a different set f dimensins within the same fatr spae. Frm a statistial pint f view, this is merely a prblem f rtatin; all slutins are mathematially equivalent. Fr researhers trying t grasp the shape f persnality struture, hwever, it prved a frmidable bstale. After all, the Cpemian revlutin in astrnmy was "merely" a shift in the basi pint f referene frm the earth t the sun! Objetins and respnses The FFM is nt a mplete thery f persnality sme wuld argue that it is nt a thery f persnality at all and MAdams (this issue) disusses sme f the limitatins f the mdel frm the brader perspetive f persnality psyhlgy. In this setin we wuld like t address sme mre speifi bjetins t the mdel that have been ited by trait psyhlgists. T few fatrs. Many writers have argued that five fatrs are insuffiient t summarize all that we knw abut individual differenes in persnality. Mershn and Grsuh (1988) argued that strnger preditins an be made frm the individual sales fthe 16PF than frm the

18 192 MCiae and Jhn ut f Peabdy's. Lw A and lw C are llapsed in H. J. Eysenk's neptin f Psyhtiism, whereas lw A is mbined with N t frm Tellegen's Negative Emtinality. It appears that all five fatrs are neessary, and this bservatin is supprted by empirial analyses. In parallel analyses, MCrae and Csta (1987) extrated fatrs frm 80 adjetive pairs in ne sample f self-reprts and ne f peer ratings. When fewer r mre than five fatrs were extrated, they uld nt be mathed arss the tw samples, but an almst perfet math was fund with five fatrs. Similar analyses, with similar results, have been reprted by Brkenau and Ostendrf (1990), Gldberg (1990), and Digman (1989). Five fatrs, it seems, are "just right." Ratings versus self-reprts. Hgan (in press) has drawn sharp distintins between bserver ratings f persnality, whih are said t represent the publi self r sial reputatin, and self-reprts, whih refiet inner drives and dispsitins, and argued that the FFM is adequate nly as a desriptin f the frmer (R. Hgan, persnal mmuniatin, January 20, 1990; see als MAdams, this issue). This bjetin is smewhat puzzling in view f the repeated revery f the five fatrs in self-reprt data. The very first reprt fthe mdel was Fiske's (1949) demnstratin f similar fatrs in peer ratings, expert ratings, and self-reprts. Questinnaire measures like the NEO-PI als yield mparable fatr strutures fr self-reprts, spuse ratings, and peer ratings (MCrae & Csta, 1989b). Agreement between sures n an individual's standing n the five dimensins is less than perfet (althugh it is substantial; see Funder & Clvin, in press), but the strutures f persnality desriptins seem virtually idential.' Tellegen and Waller (in press) made a smewhat different distintin. They nsidered the Big Five t be flk nepts, useful hiefiy in understanding the ways in whih persnality is pereived and desribed by laypersns. They argued that mre meaningful measures may be derived frm psyhlgial nepts derived frm sientifi thery and researh. Althugh relatins between these tw levels f analysis are expetable (and are in fat reprted by Tellegen and Waller), flk 3. MAdams (this issue) als distinguishes between experiened and bserved persnality, pinting ut that questinnaires and rating sales require the individual t desribe himself r herself frm the perspetive f an bserver. This is apprpriate, he argues, nly fr the mst superfiial understanding f the individual; a fuller piture requires ntextualized and nuaned attributins that are nt fund in trait desriptins. But see Funder (1991) fr a defense f glbal trait nstruts.

19 Intrdutin and psyhlgial nepts are nt ismrphi. In partiular, Tellegen (persnal mmuniatin, February 24, 1990) has suggested that the struture f sales derived frm psyhlgial nepts may be different in self-reprt and rating data. This is a pssibility that merits further researh, but it des nt seem t pse any diret hallenge t the rssbserver invariane f the FFM itself. Nte als that the revery f the five fatrs des nt depend n the use f lay raters: When linial and persnality psyhlgists use adjetives r Q-srts t desribe individuals, the same stmture is fund (Jhn, 1989a, 1990a). Cgnitive artifats versus realisti desriptin. As Brkenau (this issue) desribes, thefive-fatrmdel has been at the enter f the ntrversy abut the veridiality f traits. Peple's impliit persnality theries, as revealed thrugh their ratings f strangers and judgments f similarity in trait terms, appear t be strutured by dimensins that lsely resemble the FFM. This raises the pssibility that the FFM is itself nthing mre than a prjetin f ur gnitive biases nt the targets we rate. A variety f ingenius studies have been devised t test this hypthesis, and althugh it still has sme prpnents, mst persnality psyhlgists have rejeted it. Brkenau reviews several lines f evidene that pint t the veridiality f traits and trait fatrs; tw thers an be briefly nted. First, at least ne versin f the gnitive bias thery hlds that the fivefatr struture is embedded in the language f persnality desriptin: Warm and gregarius may define the same fatr nt beause these tw traits vary in peple, but beause the wrds themselves are quasi-synnyms, referring in part t the same interpersnal behavirs; Brkenau (this issue) all this "referential verlap" between the tw nstruts. In a sense this is true: Peabdy's (1987) studies f the internal (i.e., definitinal) struture f traits reveal smething resembling the five-fatr mdel. The radial interpretatin f this phenmenn is that the struture f traits is an arbitrary artifat f language: With a different set f persnality terms, we wuld find a different set f fatrs. But rss-ultural researh t date has instead fund very similar fatrs in widely different languages. It is surely mre parsimnius t believe that human languages have evlved t reflet human nature than t suppse that the same fitin has been rereated independently in many different ultures. Send, it is diffiult t understand hw gnitive fitins an explain real-life utmes. Yet thefivefatrs have been shwn t predit exter-

RISING TO THE CHALLENGE Re-Envisining Public Libraries RISING TO THE CHALLENGE Re-Envisining Public Libraries A reprt f the Aspen Institute Dialgue n Public Libraries by Amy K. Garmer Directr Aspen Institute

Hw t Write Prgram Objectives/Outcmes Objectives Gals and Objectives are similar in that they describe the intended purpses and expected results f teaching activities and establish the fundatin fr assessment.

1 IS THERE A CONTRACT? MANIFESTATION OF MUTUAL ASSENT: There must be an bjective manifestatin f mutual assent t a K. Judged by what a reasnable persn wuld understand the parties actins t mean. - At stake

HOW TO OVERCOME PERFECTIONISM Mst peple wuld cnsider having high standards a gd thing. Striving fr excellence can shw that yu have a gd wrk ethic and strength f character. High standards can als push yu

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? ARTHUR R. JENSEN University of California, Berkeley Originally published in Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, Winter 1969, pages 1-123. Arthur